I think there's a whole other reason why that's happening... And that is, they see their ideology on the line here. This guy is going to sink liberalism if he is not propelled to victory or if somebody doesn't take his place. They have figured out on the left that Obama's not worth saving if it means bye-bye liberalism.... And they were ecstatic, finally got somebody in office that they thought was gonna be the standard-bearer to take 'em to utopia and, instead, we have a country on the prospect of ruin. And they cannot allow for people to associate the ruination of this country with liberalism...

The New York Times is leading it; the others have caught onto it. Even the Chicago Tribune had a column yesterday -- the Chicago Tribune! ["Why Obama should withdraw."] The best thing he could do for the party and the country, just not run. The only way the party is gonna stand a chance of winning under current circumstances is if Obama's not on the ticket.

Is it really such a strong phenomenon — liberal media turning against Obama? And, if it is, is it that they're trying to bring in a new Democratic candidate? The Chicago Tribune piece assumes that new candidate would be Hillary Clinton. But, I'm sorry, I can't see the Democratic Party thriving by ousting Obama. What chaos! And Hillary would have to compete in the primaries. Presumably, other Democrats — those characters who are otherwise waiting for 2016 — would jump into the fray. (But who are those other Democrats? What is the next wave of presidential-seeming Democrats?) I think it would be an awful mess if he were publicly hounded into withdrawing.

If some powerful alliance of liberals really wanted Obama to withdraw, they would — I imagine — be operating in private. It would be handled in a way that would preserve Obama's ability to come forward and present his withdrawal in a very grand and lofty style, as a matter of his own decision and not out of desperation and for highly altruistic reasons.

Obama has already telegraphed that he won't run. The reason is that he knows he is not eligible (not a natural born Citizen-- born British of a British subject father). He knows millions are now awake to his ineligibility (except maybe "law profs"), and that he will be challenged as a candididate in many states.

What does our system do when a majority determines that someone isn't up to the job of being President? With Nixon a delegation of political leaders met with him and told him he had to go. Does anyone in the Democratic party have the clout (or the wisdom) to perform that service?

This is a pipe dream of Limbaugh. The press will report for duty and get their marching orders soom enough..they're just trying to push the prez left..a sort of manufatured primary w/o another candidate. They don't want a repeat of 1980 w/ Carter being challenged by Kennedy, so this is a more obtuse plan to get their man to toe the line.

"If some powerful alliance of liberals really wanted Obama to withdraw, they would — I imagine — be operating in private. It would be handled in a way that would preserve Obama's ability to come forward and present his withdrawal in a very grand and lofty style, as a matter of his own decision and not out of desperation and for highly altruistic reasons."

This is the kind of thinking that allows one to vote for Obama in the first place.

Obama bowing out cannot ever be "grand" or "lofty"...it means one thing only...FAILURE. And there is no way this asshat is going to do that. He is going to run a nasty campaign...lose...and be a nasty ex-POTUS to the day he dies.

No, the tact by liberals is to separate liberal policy from Obama...you see it here from garage and Cookie...Obama isn't a liberal at all! His failure was to concede liberalism to GOP wants!

Maybe he can use the high and noble excuse he used when he decided to forgo public financing for his campaign (and rake in all those hundreds of millions despite his posturing against it), i.e. "The Republicans made me do it."

That was so lame it was laughable. And yet it was one more thing the media, in its dereliction of duty to the American people, gave him an almost total pass on.

I think it would be an awful mess if he were publicly hounded into withdrawing.

Public hounding which is involuntary because many different voices are reacting the state of the union will prompt the alliance of Democrat elites to act in private like you envision in the last paragraph. That is my prediction. Unfortunately whether you like it or not, Hillary is the only well known Democrat right now to stop the Republicans in 2012. After all she won the popular vote in 2008 and had about the same number of delegates as he did and she would have had more if he hadn't cheated in the caucus states.

The irony is that she would have chosen him for VP and the Democrats would have had 16 years of history making presidency but they blew it. Fuck them!

I agree, if this was serious we would not be hearing about it like this. And I am sure they would be rallying around having Hillary run.

The truth is Obama is weakened but hardly out. He is going to be a tough candidate. A Republican is needed who is a fiscal conservative, who can explain what that means and why it better for the country.

I suspect that the New York Times and various other liberal entities are tightening up on Obama now in hopes that when they shift gears in a year that Obama will slingshot past Perry to victory. If these groups get another 6 months out and lose confidence in their plan then they will tap Hillary as a replacement. It is unclear if anyone within the Democratic party has the power to unseat a sitting president.

If a cabal of liberals can unseat Obama you can bet that one of their prime goals is to frame a cabal of conservatives for the fall. I cannot imagine any Democrat getting 90% of the black vote in Obama is thrown over the side.

I'm surprised that the media is giving in to that narrative. The approach they should be taking is to continue to blame conservatives. That's the only narrative that can save them, but it still can't win in 2012.

American voters were sold on a promise in 2008. Of course, liberal ideology doesn't work in practice, so we have the disaster that is the Obama presidency. BUT, Hillary, or virtually any other slick Democrat can once again sell a gullible electorate on the 'promise', the utopia, that 'this time it will work. Vote for me.'

obama has been attending numerous fund raisers. I haven't seen the numbers, but maybe the media has, and has noticed that he isn't bringing in the big bucks. It seems like he's lost a lot of support lately.

This idea that someone's going to (significantly) challenge Obama, or he's going to bow out, is a complete fantasy, and I can't understand why people keep clinging to it. It would be a horrible mess under any circumstances, but particularly given his "historical significance." People claiming this sound as absurd and ridiculous as the Bush Derangement People did- America never hated Bush as much as the people who hated Bush thought that it did, and they don't hate Obama as much as the people who hate Obama think it does.

Can you imagine it if he wasn't the nominee, even if he did everything possible to make it look like he really wanted to spend more time with his family, far too many people would believe that he was forced out. And why would they believe that he was forced out? You know why. The Democrats CAN NOT win a national election with the near lockstep black vote. They simply can't do it. If Obama gets beat in 2012, they can always blame the racist Republicans and the racist bitter clingers (and they will, too- it's going to be very ugly), but if the Dems toss them, that lockstep of black voters would certainly turn on them.

It's not going to happen, but of course, loss of the Democrat plantation would be a fantastic thing for the country.

Unfortunately, there are few Blacks who would vote against the first "Black" President when he's a Democrat. I always thought Obama was a bad choice for Black people. If you are gonna pick someone to represent your whole race, pick someone with proven competency. There's no blending into the background when you're the President.

Obama will bow out, if he bows out at all, at a time in which the new nominee, Hillary! 1) will not have to go through a primary grind as did RFK, McCarthy, and Humphrey; 2) will become the nominee at such a time as to be perceived as the party savior, thereby ensuring party unity over the remaining four or so months from this act to election day.

But this I know: Obama won't bow out. His narcissism won't let him, and his experience informs him that despite the polls, the voters are stupid enough to re-elect him. After all, he was the least experienced nominee ever, and the voting block of race-baiters, grifters, rent-seekers, free-loaders and white liberals consumed by guilt got him 53% of the vote last time. From that perspective, nothing's changed.

Not sure what's behind that addition you made. Few if any of those people could run (Bloomberg? Technically, he's a Republican).

Basically, once a generation, people put liberals in power, a mistake that is not repeated until enough time has gone by that enough voters don't have clear memories of the last time. Obama is this generation's "history's greatest monster."

Limbaugh is thinking wishfully. The Times et al. are bowing to reality to save themselves, but not necessarily to save liberalism. They're just not that organized or disciplined, even if individual reporters did manage to keep the journolist secret for a few months.

It would be handled in a way that would preserve Obama's ability to come forward and present his withdrawal in a very grand and lofty style, as a matter of his own decision and not out of desperation and for highly altruistic reasons.

I, and several others have said on this very blog, that Obama will 'unexpectedly' and suddenly come up with a health issue that will give him the opportunity to not only make the grand gesture, it will also cause the useful idiots to feel sorry for him and accept the 'unexpected' turn of events.

Either that, or he will just ride this pony into the ground and drag the rest of us along for a very ugly ride.

Rush is right and wrong. Right: The Liberals don't want Obambi to give liberalism a bad name. However, he is wrong in the reason. They just cannot accept that their vision of progressive liberalism is flawed, wrong and will never work.

Progressive liberalism (which is really Socialism rehashed )has never worked and has created chaos and destruction whenever it has been tried.

They just cannot accept this and think if they just try it ONE MORE TIME....this time it will work.

If the stated purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence, then how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born British, of a British subject father is an eligible natural born Citizen?

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Technical reality check, here people…the Democrats don’t have SIX MONTHS. They have until the end of October. As Conservatives keep pointing out, Palin HAS to enter the race by October or she begins to miss filing deadlines. So too, Hillary, Sotomajor, Mike Gravel, whomever, the Democratic leadership would like to replace Obama with. It’ll be too late in January of 2012 to replace Obama.

Plus, all this ASSUMES:1) Obama would go;2) That the party could win, without him and the African-American vote.The reality is, to me at least, IF Obama has so “screwed the pooch” a la LBJ, then NO Democrat can win. Analogously, this is akin to the Cunard Line replacing Captain Smith, AFTER the Titanic has hit the iceberg.

Off of the added list, only Cuomo has a legitimate chance. The rest are tired retreads or incompentents who would never rise above current station, politically.

Think about Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell as well. It won't be someone attached to this current administration nor someone as far left at the One.

The ship is sinking and those who chose to overlook the gaping holes in the One, are now inextricably linked forever.

Why do you think Democrat Pollster Doug Schoen was so clarion in his call to Dems last August? Go read the Daily Beast article from 13 months ago.

Sounds like today but now with the once supportive MSM starting to turn on its fallen idol. This is not just a derailment potential politically for Dems and give Schoen credit for calling it out long ago, but more the opportunity that it will decimate their ranks for a long time any credibility Libs and hence viable Lib candidates had with economic policy and voters.

As Led Zeppelin opined in song,

"Your time is gonna come....."

Well it appears to finally have arrived. Too bad we had to suffer to learn.

There was Palin line yesterday that in a single crony capitalism gift to Solyndra Obama gave away more stimulus money to one friendly bundler than he gave to 35 states for their roads and bridges infrastructure needs,

That is easy to spot corruption and it may be what has cost Obama his Dem license as a liberal thief-in-chief.

The first rule of liberal thieves is to design methods that don't get caught so easily.

Obama thought he was still in ChiTown where there had never been a penalty for getting caught.

I think if you read Bill Keller's opinion piece in the Sunday NYT you will get a better sense of the liberal frustration towards Obama that doesn't so much line up against him, as once again nudge him to define his stand more clearly. I think the book The Untold War reveals the slow drift from our core values and our lack of accountability that liberals had hoped would be reversed under Obama, but instead of slowing this drift, he has become, in some sense, more Bush.

A Dem challenge to Obama is a racist wet dream. That's why it won't happen. Throwing out the first Black President by any means is gonna be taken as racism by whoever does it, so the Dems won't consider it. The Repubs and the independents are gonna have to do it. All that crap we were supposed to get credit for is evaporating, because we chose style over substance at such a historic moment. Liberals will never get the cost of unintended consequences. Yes, I'm talking to you Althouse.

Mick Jagger is, of course, the well-known lead singer for the Rolling Stones. He is less well-known for his assiduous pranking and conceptual art projects.

He is engaged, at present, on a long-term art prank involving the now-fading delusion, once popular among a small cult of right wing zealots, that Obama's Presidency is not legitimate because he is not a natural-born American citizen.

As with most conceptual art projects, it has little or no point and the artist will continue to flog his project past the point of diminishing returns because he has no other ideas to pursue. The grating banality and tedium of the idea are part of the concept.

They've already floated the 'depression' meme. Who knows how much worse it will be as he continues to implode.

It will be whatever Soros decides. The only person who can tell a Hillary Clinton to sit down and shut up. But even he and all his media outlets cannot hide what Obama is - and has been all along.

I don't want him to step down. You voted it in, you deal with it, all the way to the ignominious end, which will be him LOSING 60/40, with the *@$%!!" tax-tax-tax-and-spend-spend-spend democrats out of power for the next century.

As for up and coming contenders - in this race and the next, the Republicans have all the fire in the belly, all the excitement, all the integrity, and yes, the diversity. Despite the media portrayals, even the current filed is vastly superior to Obama, especially when it comes to honesty and personal integrity.

Herman Cain has never voted "present." Just as an example. Too bad Obama wasn't a man of that caliber - we wouldn't even be having this discussion if he were anywhere close.

He wishes it was so. Compared to Bush, Obama is hollow, lost, and rudderless. The liberal toolbox has no solutions to our problems - it's the cause. How can you help when you arrive at a fire with only matches and gasoline?

I always thought Obama willingly threw away his best chances for reelection with his health care program. I thought that was a fair deal and if Obama isn't reelected or even renominated I think it was worth it. I think he does too.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)It’s scary I agree with Cooke, ENTIRELY…the humour was spot-on as well as the point, to include the point about ‘elections.” What alien has abducted Cookie and what have done with my Stalinist?

I always thought Obama's best chance of being reelected in 2012, in spite of the GOPs advantages, would be that the Republicans would misread and misunderstand Obama and show confusion over the issues.

Robert Cook said... ""Mick, are you for real, or just idiot trolling?"

Mick Jagger is, of course, the well-known lead singer for the Rolling Stones. He is less well-known for his assiduous pranking and conceptual art projects.

He is engaged, at present, on a long-term art prank involving the now-fading delusion, once popular among a small cult of right wing zealots, that Obama's Presidency is not legitimate because he is not a natural-born American citizen.

As with most conceptual art projects, it has little or no point and the artist will continue to flog his project past the point of diminishing returns because he has no other ideas to pursue. The grating banality and tedium of the idea are part of the concept."

So answer the question:

If the stated reason for the natural born Citizen requirement is the prevention of foreign influence, how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born BRITISH, is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS.

You can't answer the question, since it is a gordian knot, and a symbol of your utter disregard for the rule of law-- it produces cognitive dissonance. No ONE here can answer the question, and you all should be ashamed and embarrassed by your outright or tacit acceptance of Treason. That question is Obama's Kryptonite, but you go on and bitch and complain about how he is destroying America, all with the tool for his demise directly in front of you, and ignored by the "law prof". No wonder our lawyers don't know anything about the Constitution.

I heard that bit from Rush yesterday, and I agree with him. It goes back to his "I hope he fails" statement. The regime is failing and flailing. Obama himself is not hated the way Bush was, but the whole idea of Big Government is more and more looking like an abject failure.

If Obama loses, it will be on the merits of liberalism itself, and that's the best possible scenario for centrists and conservatives, and, as Rush says, the absolute unacceptable outcome for liberals.

No excuses any more. Obama had two years of Dem hegemony, and the country is a mess.

I think that President Obama's "tax the rich" push is proof he's planning on running. I don't believe he's ever grown intellectually since he his Ivy League sophomore bull sessions. He can't tell the difference between making left wing bloggers happy, and making the American people happy, so he's going to spend the next 13+ months making the left-wing bloggers happy, then go into serious shock when he gets trounced on election day.

As for "group of liberal elders going to Obama privately", who? Who would do it, that President Obama, the most powerful man in the world, the head of the Democrat Party, will listen to and respect. Who is going to tell President "I won" that he's going to lose, that liberalism (and continuing jobs for Democrat Party hacks) is more important than he is, and therefore he has to stop running for re-election?

And who can do it in time for it to actually matter? The first primary filing deadline is Nov 1, IIUC. John Edwards is toast. Howard Dean is still a punchline, and Gore is totally out of shape. President Obama's cabinet is full of dwarfs. Is President Obama going to give up running for re-election just to make way for Hilary Clinton?

Robert Cook wrote: Heck, I wish we had the option of a "no confidence" vote for every elected official and a "none of the above" option on every ballot.

Every once in a while I totally agree with you.

Yes, because governing as a right/centrist, with servile leanings toward Wall Street, "proves" "liberal ideology doesn't work in practice."

I think your left-right-conservative-liberal spectrum doesn't really apply the way you like to present it. The primary expression of liberal ideology -- whatever its defacto positions -- is a bloated, overreaching Federal government.

Once you assign that much power to the government the bureaucrats take charge. The only way to defend that much power is with the pretense that experts are in control.

This is Obama's narrative.

You will never get the big-government populism you want. It will always be co-opted by technocrats.

Hillary will accept veep slot on the promise of an extraordinary portfolio in exchange for saving Obama, and enter 2016 as both heir apparent and agent of change. 2016 is lost to her if she doesn't accept, and she's got nowhere else to go after being sec state; certainly not chief of staff.

Bloomie went Indy a few years ago I think. He'd fit squarely in the Dem Party if he chose. But would he ever give up his cartoonishly lavish lifestyle to campaign nationally? Only if he thought he was a lock to win.

Rush Limbozo doesn't know f*ck about economics--and doesn't understand the point on rich paying less proportionately in taxes (ie, investors make their shekels the old fashioned way--they gamble for it in stocks, bonds, commodities,and only pay 15%via BushCo capital gains rates-- So Limbozo resorts to barking out his insults, ad hominems, pundit hype, lame speculations--has little or nothing to do with political reality.

It is interesting that the field of Democrat contenders is so shallow and mostly consists of tired retreads. They have nothing new to offer.

The Republican field, even though it still has the tired old same old's like Romney, Gingrich etc, has more diversity and depth. Variety and range in opinions and philosophy from Paul to Romney.

I think that the fresh infusion of names like West, Bachman (no matter what your personal opinions of them are) are a direct result of the TEA Party pulling newly engaged and enraged citizens who are Conservatives (not necessarily Republicans) into the political arena.

The Left has tried, unsuccessfully, to emulate and artificially create a "Tea Party" of their own. It seems that their ideology doesn't allow diversity or dissent like the Conservatives do.

Hillary will accept veep slot on the promise of an extraordinary portfolio in exchange for saving Obama, and enter 2016 as both heir apparent and agent of change. 2016 is lost to her if she doesn't accept, and she's got nowhere else to go after being sec state; certainly not chief of staff.

One more term of Zero and it won't make any difference who is elected. The USA as we know it will be defunct. Broke. Chaos. Riots in the street.

Bachmann---new thinking! Heh. Wrong. It's..old thinking. Old- time religion thinking, and get rid of taxes and all those regulations. Why if a business wants to sell like...rotten meat or cars with transmissions which will stop working in a few weeks, they should be allowed to,goldarnit. DBQism.

Carter almost sunk the country. The result was Reagan for two terms. It was NOT the abandonment of liberalism. Rush is letting his desire override his reading of reality if he thinks ANYTHING will kill the attachment to liberalism on the part of 30 - 40% of the population.

I see the Smalll Pathetic Kissinger's aka JoeJoe got his shofar and is playing a little ugly medley. No dumbass, the capital gains will be raised, either now, or when the BushCo tax slash for warprofiteers ends. Your AynRand books are not economics, Joejoe nor is your fave Greenspam book

I never said I liked her or that it was 'new thinking'. In fact, I think she is toast right about now.

The difference is that she is even included in the field of contenders. The Dems just don't seem to be able to expand their depth of candidates to include outliers. Kuchinich perhaps would be the equivalent of Bachman in being on the edge of the political spectrum.

The possible candidates from the Dems to replace Obama are mostly the same retreads offering the same policies that Obama has taken to extremes...but still the same. I actually like Mary Landrieu. She at least has some spine.

Rush is absolutely correct. As I've been saying, Barry is morphing into Herbert Obama and the Lefties are getting scared he'll take not just the whole Democrat Party, but the Lefty paradigm with him.

The fact that the media is talking about him like this now - a year out - when it was about this time in 1980 they started giving Carter this kind of grief indicates how scared they are.

And Andy Cuomo may be able to get the Demo nomination - frankly, I think he's running for Veep this cycle, but he'd be a disaster in the popular vote for essentially buying the votes for same sex marriage in NY.

Ann Althouse said...

I think it would be an awful mess if he were publicly hounded into withdrawing.

That's how the New Left gained control of the Democrats back in '68 and '72.

It’s funny that the Power Lifter doesn’t grasp that Buffett DOESN’T pay less, either in rate or percentage than his secretary and AP and others demonstrate it….Capital Gains is a tax on money ALREADY taxed, once, and that the “rich” generally pay ~20-plus percent of their income in “taxes”-all forms, whilst the AVERAGE for everyone else is ~9-10%. It may not be an economics text, but it IS an Economics Lesson.

JOHN, you and your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, John, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, John, there is a Mick. He exists as certainly as British usurpers and non natural born citizens exist, and you know that they abound and try to pass themselves off as true Americans. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Mick. It would be as dreary as if there were no Titus. There would be no faith in your own subjective view of the Constitution, no focus on a single clause of that document, no devotion to duty to make tolerable this existence. We should have no clarity of thought, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which obsession fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Mick! You might as well not believe in Carol Herman! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the courtrooms and voting booth but even if they did not see Mick verifying candidates and voters credentials, what would that prove? Nobody sees Mick, but that is no sign that there is no Mick. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see Carol Herman dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that she are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the clauses of the Constitution and see what is inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture of an usurper British subject taking over the highest office in the land. Is it all real? Ah, John, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Mick! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, John, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the hearts of hedgehogs with his focus on one big idea.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that Intrade still has Obama a coin flip to win, and Cook Political has the electoral college threshold deep in the middle of their toss-up states. It pays to be the incumbent.

Also, why isn't anyone mentioning the most popular Democratic governor, John Lynch of New Hampshire, who would walk away with the presidency if he could somehow get past the primaries.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) John Lynch of New Hampshire, who would walk away with the presidency if he could somehow get past the primaries

And a Frog wouldn’t bump his @rse every time he jumps, IF he had wings….as Primaries are how one secures the nomination, basically you’re positing an anointment, rather an odd approach in democratic politics, don’t you think?

Why? She's populist and more libertarian than Perry. She took on (Republican!) corrpution in Alaska, and crony capitalism. She's hardly a liberal, but maybe more acceptable to the NYT than the social-security-bashing and crony capitalist Perry.

And she's a woman! No small thing to the NYT.

Remember, much of the attack on Palin has been sexist.

Jill Abramson is the new executive editor of the NYT.

Hello! Feminism! You're not going to be able to slime Palin anymore. The NYT is sick of it.

Shouting Peasant shows how little he knows about US history, once again.

Regulations---consumer, workplace, environmental etc--were put into effect precisely because companies and industries had ignored them for years (ie, they made money before labor laws, or workplace health, etc). That was due to progressives --in both GOP and Dems. Teddy Roosevelt for instance was a progressive, even a green in a sense (helped create/develop US Park service)-- not that current TP wingnuts are aware of that.

Robber baron capitalists--JP Morgan,Carnegie, Rockefeller etc--would have preferred no regs, no laws, no taxes . Randopolis! Sort of what the TP argues for now.

The Bamster will ride this pony into the ground; just as George Will noted that Obama has faith in his rhetoric that is not matched by his actual rhetorical ability, Obama has delusions of grandeur. I might also add that The Bamster suffers from delusions of competence. So the question is just how ugly the denouement will be. Ugly--or even uglier? Your mileage may vary, but I'm betting on the latter.

I don't see any Democrats mounting a serious primary challenge against Barack Obama.

Even less do I see a delegation of wise men and women making an appointment at the White House and talking him into resigning.

The Establishment Media are genuinely afraid that Obama is going down and taking the "progressive" brand with him.

They also hold onto the hope that he will come up with a successful line of demagoguery (perhaps with a little scripting from their own experienced cadre of event-shapers) or the Republicans will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In which case, they will happily pretend that they knew all along he was going to be the Comeback Kid.

As soon as Obama made it clear that Porkulus Senior, ObamaReidPelosiCare, and Cap and Trade would be his signature initiatives, I figured that his administration was the "progressives'" bridge too far.

Now that the recession drags on and on, and may double or triple dip (first Europe, then China), I see Obama as the Herbert Hoover of the Left.

If he is truly one-and-done, as it increasingly appears he will be, the so-called progressives (in today's world, a more accurate name for them is regressives) will be a facing a long night in American politics.

And they will have earned it.

PS. Future Democratic presidential fields aren't looking too good now, are they? Kathleen Sebelius? If Obama loses next November and/or the Supreme Court takes down the individual mandate, she will be more radioactive than her ex-boss. Gabby Giffords? An admirably resilient lady who's been dealt a terrible hand. But it remains unclear whether she will recover enough of her ability to speak to be able to run for Congress again. Janet Napolitano?!!! Janet Napolitano for President makes as much sense as Janet Reno for President.

Joe - I agree with your technical reality check, but one niggling point: Captain E.J. Smith worked for the White Star Line, not Cunard. You can tell the difference between the two because White Star ships have names ending in -ic (Titanic, Britannic, Olympic) and Cunard in -ia (Lusitania, Mauretania).

And, sweet baby Jesus, I actually agree with cook, too, regarding a NOTA line on the ballot; except for Ronaldus Maximus I'd have been filling that line out every time I voted.

"If you don't like it, you should join the tea party."

Sorry, Henry, Cook would never do that. We're too beholden to the bloated plutocrats, or the Bilderbergers or the Stonecutters. Or we're racist. Or something.

Funny, J. You like to pretend to that swearing tough guy stance, but you want the government to change your diapers.

When I was a kid, way back when, my aunt fished and raised chickens for a living. She sold the eggs, chicken and fish door to door in my little home town. Also, my neighbors sold completely unregulated bunnies and chickens that they raised in back yard coops to their neighbors and friends.

Neighbors with big gardens commonly set up completely unregulated farm stands and sold their excess produce.

Can't recall a single person who died of food poisoning.

That great environmental and workplace regulation that you cite brings with it a terrible cost... the loss of jobs. All that regulation drives up the cost of business, and factories and shops close up and head for places with lower costs.

What's your solution?

Yes, I was born a peasant. I'm proud of that. Another of your bad habits, so common to nanny state democrats, J, is contempt for those they profess to be trying to help.

I'm having a hard time believing that obama will win re-election. I know, I know, he won once and can do it again, but I don't see it happening. Yes, he will get 95% of the black vote, but will 100% of blacks that originally voted for him even show up at the polls this time? How many will sit it out? How many blacks have lost their houses and jobs? Young voters that voted for him? How many are not working now, or out of college and unable to find a job?

I think that a lot of Democrats and the press realize this, and are more concerned that he'll take down a lot of Democrats who are also on the ticket in state races.

Can't wait to see how that "Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme!" and "I support RyanCare/VoucherCare" message plays itself out.

Desperately in need of new programming...

I though the point of the project was to endow the unit known as Garage with a semblance of intelligence.

When thousands of people have said, in public, that Social Security runs like a Ponzi scheme, no one's going to be struck dead or politically ruined for saying it (well, I suppose they will if they're running on the Democratic ticket).

Paul Samuelson referred to Social Security as "Ponzi-like." In Newsweek. In the 1960s.

I'm saying that the Democratic voter could choose to strategically go with a centrist who will do the liberal thing half the time, or lose and get a Republican who will do the liberal thing one tenth of the time.

I'm saying that the Democratic tent includes politicians who would be elected with a large majority if only the progressives who dominate primaries and caucuses would be strategic. I don't expect them to, it'd take me a decade or losing to vote for Jon Huntsman too.

Also, Intrade is not meaningless, it's real people betting their own real money to best gauge the odds. Look at the Cook Political electoral college line, do you really think that it's any more than a coin flip that the President will lose New Hampshire and Wisconsin or whatever other iffy states that are in the balance. After a year of satire, one sided reporting, and creepy ads, Rick Perry's mother won't recognize him.

If I were betting my own money, a coin flip is about where I'd put it now, and not this silly meme that the President has already lost.

Quayle , you got it right. Like the rest of the trailer-park Carnegies here, you're too stupid for political discussion.

Infact fly-by-night capitalists did get away with sleazy underhanded things for years before regs were put in place--including selling cars that would break down in a few years. Caveat emptor--the motto of the anarchist capitalist, and its descendant the teabug

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) If I were betting my own money, a coin flip is about where I'd put it now, and not this silly meme that the President has already lost

They aren’t saying “he’s ALREADY lost” but it sure looks very, very bad…..the trend line is NOT “up” but down…and in 2010 they lost the US House, but also lost down ticket, too…in 2012 it’s most likely that the US House gets MORE Republican, and TEA Party, not less….the US Senate flips, even if it doesn’t provide 60 “R” votes, probably several governorships and a whole lot of state house races go “R.”

That’s pretty D@mned daunting if you are a Democratic Insider…about the BEST you can hope for is Obama in 2012, keep the Senate, barely, and not do too bad in the states…I’m just saying that when the best you can hope for is only a little bad news, they ought to be worried and they probably are.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) --including selling cars that would break down in a few years

No big surprise, the Small Pathetic Voice, is wrong again…it was NOT the “gub’mint” nor “regulation” that “fixed” cars…..it was Honda, Toyota and the like producing dependable, long-lived cars, that swept the market that made cars “better.” It was a lazy conglomerate of the Big Three and the UAW that created poorly constructed, short-lived cars, it was CAPITALIST competition that improved them! Stick with the Power Lifting SPV, you’re probably better at it, than Economic History…well you’d almost HAVE to be a better Power Lifter than you are “commenter/blogger.” I doubt you could be WORSE at lifting weights.

No you're wrong, Small Pathetic Kissinger aka JoeJoe, defender of Greenspam ,and Ayn Rand, GoldmanSachs--and another mediocre shofart player to booot. Which point of fact I am wrong on, zionist-capitalist? Capitalism has never been wrong? Why even your bogus Trotskyite self(ie, joejoe being bipolar like most finance scum) says things about texass style capitalism. Notnow--Exxon,the best.

These little Atard rants are about one thing--Bubba (even JoeJoe Bubbaberg) wants his taxes low, goldangit. That and the veiled racism.

THIS is the Small Pathetic Voice we all know and love…not a coherent or rational thought in there….but it sure must have felt good spewing it out over the “page”…simply viewing allowed the SPV to proclaim its existence and “relevance.”

Cars from the 40' through the 70's simply weren't machined to the perfection that they are now. A lot of things changed, and the first to do the change was Japan. How many people remember having to change points? You had to change or regap spark plugs every 10,000 miles, also. Even tires changed immensely. I remember buying retread snow tires and having to put them on before winter arrived. Nobody does that anymore.

If the stated reason for the natural born Citizen requirement is the prevention of foreign influence, how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born BRITISH, is a natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS.

Can NO ONE on this supposedly law centered blog answer the question? Do lawyers know anything about the Constitution?

Andrew Cuomo, maybe. Other than that they've got nuthin' - Jerry Brown would be better than anyone else on your list. It's a bunch of governors and Senators who'll be lucky to keep their own seats, much less move up.

"Yes, John, there is a Mick. He exists as certainly as British usurpers and non natural born citizens exist, and you know that they abound and try to pass themselves off as true Americans."

So can you answer the question? Can you prove that Obama is not British to this day? (HINT: you need to see his passport records, which we are not allowed to see, and that a man was killed for seeing.

Can't you see that Obama is the perfect example of why a natural born Citizen is required? Does he seem to you to have the best interests of the USA at heart? Does he have the necessary allegiance and attachment to America? Of course not. I am a hedgehog.

Not for nothing, Harry S. Truman said: "If you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog."

Yes, Ted Kennedy gave Obama a very beautiful dog. But Obama doesn't like dogs.

Hopefully, for the dog's sake, his kids do.

But thinking that reporters are friends when YOU are their story?

Have you lost your mind?

Obama DITHERS. He knows what he wants to do. But right now he can't.

He still wants to run in 2012.

And, I think the AP and the New Yuk Times ... are just providing "cover" ... to make the race ahead seem interesting enough.

But not to upset the applecart.

IF Obama gets 4 more years ... the AP and the New Yuk Times ... knows for sure that the Supreme Court changes hands ... And, the "REALISTS" ... who really want to see Constitutional Law survive ... WON'T!

The good news, of course, is that Anthony Kennedy will be gone. While, yes. The liberals will argue among themselves.

That's a rule that's set in cement. (Or, as Will Rogers once said: "I don't belong to any party, because I am a democrat.")

You should read the book about FDR's (9) Supreme Court picks. Not one of those man liked the other!

You think "Liberalism" isn't like the Bible? Do you know how many ways you can interpret words in the bible?

What's at stake is BIG TIME.

Just running against Obama with a White Guy who says "white guys rule." Hasn't quite understood the tragedy that's befallen us all.

He'd have been lighthearted about once having been a democrat. And, he'd have run on his record (liberal as it was, he explained he was the governor of CALIFORNIA. Two times. And, he didn't rock the boat with biblical nonsense!) He waved in everybody's general direction!

Were times bad in 1980?

You need to ask?

Mortgage rates were escalating up to 17% ... Thanks to Jimmy Carter ... there was a crisis afoot.

And, Reagan ran on the theme that there was a new dawn coming to America.

Too many bitter pills are republicans.

And, what you don't see, or ever read here ... is the flow of independents ... who seem to like Ron Paul.

Sure. I'm surprised.

But I remember that when Ralph Nader first came out ... he held appeal.

Even the lunatic Ross Perot, back in 1992, held appeal.

If I knew a gypsy who read tea leaves I'd ask if 2012 looks like a 3-way race. It's almost as if the only competition to obama ... has to come from the outside.

Your point was about short-lived cars, not Hummers or Suburbans, or Hondas’, per se (It’s Latin, you can look it up). And FOREIGN SUV’s hold up, better than US ones…to continue with the main theme, such as you are capable of maintaining it. Again it was COMPETITION, not “regulation” that improved automotive reliability and longevity.

No, Small Pathetic Joejoe it wasn't. Merely opposing the Paultards and glibertarians here ,and saying regulations have often been needed--including catalytic converters, and various controls on pollution. If oil and coal industries (ie, theGOP 's constituents) had their way...the rust belt would still look like 60s--covered in industrial smoke,etc.

That would be the “Jim Webb” who decided he would NOT run for re-election, correct? But a one-term Senator, one-time Republican who cannot convince his own Virginians to return him to the US Senate would be an excellent candidate for US President?

I'm willing to bet the Gray Lady sees Perry as the new Reagan and figures Palin could be more easily destroyed.

The attack on Palin has been almost completely cultural. By wiping out McGinniss and focusing on her ideas, the NYT is treating her seriously. This negates the primary negative against Palin, that she is unelectable.

No, I think the NYT is resigned to losing the White House, and they prefer Palin to Perry.

Of course this means nothing to Republicans. It may be we want the most far-right candidate we can get!

And while I think Obama is heading for a massive, massive defeat, we still have to win the damn thing.

Will Romney cause the right to stay home?

Will Perry scare seniors on Social Security? Will he remind people of George W.? (And is that a drawback?!) He's not funny like Reagan.

Will Sarah remind people of "scandal fatigue"? Has she been too slimed to campaign effectively? Will being a woman help her?

Who will make the right-wingers happy and bring in the independents?

Speaking as a right-winger, I'll vote for any of 'em. Romney, I'll hold my nose. Sarah is Tea Party, Perry is old school conservative.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) the rust belt would still look like 60s--covered in industrial smoke,etc

Now it’s just covered in cobwebs and unemployment….I see your point.

Oh and Oil and Coal, those materials that are ESSENTIAL to Modern Technic Life…that provide the abundant and cheap energy necessary for most of us to live the lives of comfort we currently do, are they the “enemy?”

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) including catalytic converters, and various controls on pollution

And yet so many government mandates, fail…demanding CERTAIN technologies, rather than REDUCTION in outputs, or the creation of “licenses to pollute” merely drive up firm costs, forcing moves to overseas, where environmental regulation is far less…the end result being FEWER Americans employed, but GREATER pollution….why it’s a Bi-fecta of Government Goodness!

That just as dumb as a primary challenge. Which would be stupid, but I could see happening out of frustration and anger from disaffected liberals.

At least with a primary challenge, the challenger can plausibly claim that Obama's policies are not the challenger's policies.

With a coordinated hand-off, the new Democratic nominee not only has to own Obama's past policies, he/she has to own his lameduckness over the final year of his term.

"Mrs. Clinton, I understand that as the Democratic candidate for President in 2012, you are not President Obama. However, you are currently his secretary of state, and he has thrown his support behind your campaign. As President, how would you continue the unemployment, health care, and fiscal policies of President Obama, and if not, why is he not taking your advice?"

Those great environmental and workplace regulations virtually shut down the factory economy in that corridor, sending all the work to Asia.

So, no jobs.

New York State has been hemorrhaging people for decades as a result. The tax base keeps getting smaller. Old folks have to sell out and move away because taxes will force them out of their houses.

That rust belt has never recovered from the combined assault of union wage and benefit demands, and over regulation.

Your style has become doubly stupid, J, now that you seem to want to enter the discussion as a sensible commenter. Unfortunately, you're still continuing with the idiot swearing, anti-semitism, and general high school boy big mouth tactics.

It's a foolish act, J. If you want people to take you seriously, stop acting like a fool.

Ann, you're off the rails again. Have we seen any indication that Obama has the humility and lack of ego to accept advice from a delegation of high-powered Dems saying he "needs to take one for the team"?

"It's not your year, son" Yeah that could happen.

And what Tim said. Obama will continue to believe there are enough freeloaders and race-baiters, not to mention gullible profs. to put him over the top.

Please, please let Al Gore run in '16. The biggest carbon buttprint in the world.

Even if Obama were to step aside, no Dem would-be president could get rid of Obamacare. Politically impossible. (Unless it was ruled unconstitutional.) So the Dems are stuck with the millstone of Pelosi-Obamaism (at least with one of its greatest-- and most toxic-- achievements), no matter what they do.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) What about Jim Webb? He is the Democratic antithesis of the wimpy, metro sexual liberal that is exemplified by Obama

Who cannot win re-election in 2012 and so will NOT seek another term! So it would seem that the Democratic Party is NOT interested in the anti-thesis of the wimpy metro-sexual AND exactly how is a man who cannot win re-election in the Purple State of Virginia going to win elsewhere in the nation? “Not good enough for Ole’Virginny, but good enough for YOU!”?

To paraphrase another overrated individual: First we fight you, then we laugh at you, then we ignore you, then you lose.

Seriously, it's time for you to find another obsession. Your current one is something far, far worse than wrong--it's boring."

If you don't care about the eligibility of the President then you certainly deserve no protection from the Constitution. Stand aside while those that are awake protect and defend the Constitution. Many of the founders said that the functioning of a Constitutional Republic depends on the jealouse defense of the Constitution by a knowledgeable citizenry. Apparently you don't fit the bill.

You're kidding with that list of gack-inducing females, right? Or, I should say, you're kidding with that list of gack-inducing females and Giffords--would that God should grant her the kind of recovery that would allow her to consider such an option (not that I would vote for her).

Cuomo, definitely. In fact, at this early-early stage, I'd call him the front runner. He's shown some real executive chops so far in Albany. However, I've long wondered if a significant skeleton in the Cuomo closet was what kept Mario off the national hustings. If so, would it hurt Andrew as well?

The Democratic field: what it lacks in depth, it more than makes up for in its utter dearth of breadth.

The only Democrats who would challenge our Historic First Black President for the nomination are Democrats who don't care particularly about their political futures. But I agree, all hounding should be done in private. For one thing, it could unleash a backwash of sympathy in those mushy-middle independents who simply can't abide having our Historic First Black President treated in such a disrespectful manner.

I haven't taken a trip upstate in many years, but I did just see an episode of House Hunters that took place in Syracuse where rather substantial single-family properties were selling in the low 100,000's. I lived in the area (Fayetteville) for a few years when I was a kid and have only fond memories. The thought that it's gone the way of Buffalo is depressing.

A person can be totally right, and yet still irrelevant. Get a clue: your concern here is irrelevant. Irrelevant because no one cares, we have far bigger concerns about unsuitable office-holders, including legions of them who would be/are just as damaging as The One yet have no questionable (to you) citizenship status.

A person can be totally right, and yet still irrelevant. Get a clue: your concern here is irrelevant. Irrelevant because no one cares, we have far bigger concerns about unsuitable office-holders, including legions of them who would be/are just as damaging as The One yet have no questionable (to you) citizenship status.

Please go away until you find some other obsession to flog..."

Oh, so you must be one of those "conservatives" that thinks the qualifications for POTUS are irrelevant. If so then step aside. There are millions that will challenge Obama's eligibility in the next election, god willing he makes it that far. What other parts of the Constitution do you find irrelevant? I will also challenge Rubio (born of non US Citizen Cuban resident aliens-- thus not natural born. I could care less about your silly "team", since the avenue to oust the Usurper and VOID all of his policies is directly in front of you, but you're too dumb to use it. My team is the Constitution.

The Democrats have a huge problem. The President isn't going to get reelected. Unemployment will remain high. Gas prices will continue upward. The coverups of "gun walker" and Solyndra will fail. Obama will remain Obama.

But the Democrats have played racial, cultural, gender and sexual preference identity politics for so long that they cannot afford to lose any bloc. African Americans voted so enthusiastically and monolithicly that they gave the President a 10% + edge in a race he won by 7%. Blacks won't tolerate dumping Obama. If he doesn't run a race based third party will appear like magic.

The other identity blocs would demand to be next in line. Women, Latinos and perhaps even gays would want their turn. The coalition of greed and envy that is the Democratic Party can only paper over its internal tensions by keeping Obama, no matter how poorly he is doing. The Democrats will run Obama and lose rather than split their shaky structure.